[korla]

When I studied philosophy, we applied scientific methodology to understand complex topics, categorising them, and evaluating them against each other. The theories of moral philosophy are under scrutiny in a way very similar to the (other) natural sciences.

[munk-a]

That works to inform discussion. Having access to the modern knowledge of how the nervous system powers muscle movements helps elevate discussions around the intent to act and the deterministic natures of that intent well beyond what folks digesting the topic in the 1500s could comprehend. But there's a really hard limit with how far it can get you.

Provable things often point us toward certain answers - but provable science has historically shown us that it isn't afraid to pull the rug out from under us and throw a curveball. Physics is highly deterministic and ordered - extremely so - under you get subatomic - then everything goes out the window.

Philosophy obviously needs to not go directly against things we have a high confidence in - but there's still a lot of grey area in there especially where the philosophy of motion and ethics are involved.